I don't think it's a tactical nightmare. Every draft, there's always a few guys who will do it. Because a Gainey, Ramsay, Carbonneau, or Metz will add more overall value to your team than a number of 2nd liners and some 1st liners. It's tricky sometimes getting a guy for a 1st line when you've started your 3rd, but not a nightmare. I don't think any teams get all three first liners, then all three second liners, and so on.
Except for mine. Actually, I once started my 3rd line before finishing my second (Walt Tkaczuk in ATD#9), and it was a blunder.
Some of the "overemphasis" on 1st units that the new GMs are reacting against is probably my doing. I believe very strongly in putting your best talent on the ice for as long as possible, which means overloading 1st units (or simply drafting them first) and looking for values on 3rd line guys later because the popular picks will be gone long before I start looking in that direction. Well ok, I did pick Dean Prentice once.
The pendulum never stops swinging, and a little opposition certainly doesn't bother me. When I came into the ATD, I was the opposition in a league in which the "pure checking 3rd line" was considered a philosophers' stone by many and Bob Gainey was a 3rd round pick. Going against the grain of whatever cultural blinders are present is often the best way to do things.
I agree with this. If everyone else is good with it, I wouldn't mind to see the 24-hour rule abolished and a 6-hour trade clock implemented as of the next round. If something is really THAT ridiculous, enough of us will see it in 6 hours. I'd imagine that something like 20 of us probably at least skim through this thread at any 6 hour period of time.
Just do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand
I did PM him. Will the trade go in effect immediately or is the 24 clock reset after the pick?
So even if you hypothetically had a team that'd be superior to all teams in other divisions but had teams that are built to beat your team in your division you'd finish last? I.e. interdivisional play doesn't factor into the standings at all?
Honestly, if someone was going to reject the trade, they would have done so already. I say just accept it, move on, and change this terrible rule ASAP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator
Except for mine. Actually, I once started my 3rd line before finishing my second (Walt Tkaczuk in ATD#9), and it was a blunder.
Some of the "overemphasis" on 1st units that the new GMs are reacting against is probably my doing. I believe very strongly in putting your best talent on the ice for as long as possible, which means overloading 1st units (or simply drafting them first) and looking for values on 3rd line guys later because the popular picks will be gone long before I start looking in that direction. Well ok, I did pick Dean Prentice once.
The pendulum never stops swinging, and a little opposition certainly doesn't bother me. When I came into the ATD, I was the opposition in a league in which the "pure checking 3rd line" was considered a philosophers' stone by many and Bob Gainey was a 3rd round pick. Going against the grain of whatever cultural blinders are present is often the best way to do things.
Alright, having an elite checking line is amazing because at the very least, it means you can neutralize the other team's best line. But there are still 3 other lines that have to play the game! Even IF I believed that having an elite 3rd line is the "philosopher's stone", I would STILL vote against a team that had crap everything else! The elite checking line talent is going to go earlier - this is just how it is. However, I don't see why we have to be penalized about picking a guy in the mid-200s that is an elite checker as opposed to inside the 300's! Obviously Bob Gainey in round 3 is a ridiculous waste of a pick, but c'mon! We got Ramsay at 230 something, and not we're getting flak for it because we didn't finish out first line earlier?
I think you need to ask yourself - what the hell is the point of this draft? Is it to just get the best collection of players possible and just randomly put together lines that you appear to believe are less important later like you seem to be implying? Or is it to be strategic with who you select and when you select them, and building the best team possible that is perceived to be COHESIVE enough to play a REAL game of hockey?
We selected Dick Duff because he complements our first line players very well! Why the hell should that be counted against us? Are you suggesting that Jean Ratelle and Boris Mikhailov won't make him better offensively than his stats indicate? What about Rob Brown then, on the '90's Penguins? Was he out of place there too? He got 100 points! Yes, I realize that Lemieux and Jagr did that for him, but c'mon! He had no business being on a top line, but he got 100 points! There is no way in hell you can convince me that players of Ratelle and Mikhailov's calibre, who admittedly are pretty well behind Jagr and Lemieux, won't help Duff increase his production. However, the fact is that this line, at least in my opinion, should work very well together. Duff is a big game player that knows how to win, and that should very well rub off on Ratelle at least, and Mikhailov has won his fair share of tournaments too.
Just as you went against the grain once, so am I - I don't see a problem with almost any drafting strategy, provided you at least take care of some parts of your scoring lines earlier on, and you don't make completely out of place selections. However, there is nothing wrong with grabbing an elite 3rd liner, and also in our case, an elite goalie as well when appropriate. With Plante in net, how many goals are we really going to need to score, especially if our team ends up being one of the best in the draft defensively?
For me, I look at cohesiveness and what each LINE brings to a team far more than I look at each individual player. This is why I voted against a team in the Leafschat ATD that had Hart trophy winners and numerous top-10 scorers on their 4th line. That 4th line had practically no toughness, would only play MAYBE 10 minutes a game, if that, and was going to get pushed around like a rag doll! Why SHOULDN'T the GM win that put together a much stronger team as an entire unit rather than just getting the best players possible and having a team that barely works well together?
Just a correction, Brown, being a RW, didn't exactly play with Jagr.
He still would have played with Lemieux. My point was, that lesser offensive talents, if providing enough intangibles, can be successful with guys that are better than them. NHL teams do this a lot of the time, and I think it is a fantastic idea. There are few elite offensive talents that also bring all the intangibles that a glue guy brings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever
I am all for a shortened clock. It really is quite difficult to get a deal done way before.
Honestly, this sounds fine, I don't see why this would be rejected. Nice pick by the way.
Thanks. I really wanted him for my 3rd line since the beginning. And after I saw Konstantinov (and, ironically, Roberts) slip past me from the players I really wanted, I thought I better trade up to make sure I get him. He never went in the 300s in last 4 or 5 drafts I checked.
So can I officially post that I get Otto (and some bio/reasons for the pick) or do I have to wait until evening for 24 hrs to pass?
Oh and about Brown, I don't disagree, just wanted to clarify.
Let's not misunderstand each other, jarek. As I have made no specific statements about your team, I will assume that your arguments regarding Duff and Ramsey are directed at those who have and that you are just expressing them in a post ostensibly directed at me. Speaking very generally, I have nothing against pure checking lines on principle; I just think they're hard to pull off in reality. I'll list the reasons:
1) Line matching doesn't have an amazingly high success rate, especially on visiting ice. No matter how hard you try and how good a coach you have, over a 7 game series you're not going to get your preferred matchup more than about 60% of the time if the other team does anything against it. Line matching also involves the risk of changing lines on the fly, a problem that is magnified against ATD 1st units which are almost unanimously capable of exploiting a bad change.
2) Icetime: even if 100% line-matching success were possible, that means you would be giving 1st line icetime to 3rd line offensive talents. Sure, you might slow down another team's top unit, but you're slowing down your own, as well.
3) Defensemen: most ATD teams don't have two stud, pure defensive-defensemen to make such a scheme successful without being wasteful. Most teams have at least one 2-way guy like a Lidstrom or a Park among their two best defensive defensemen, which is problematic for putting together a shutdown unit. Either you largely waste the offensive talents of one of your best defensemen (Lidstrom feeding pucks up ice to...Guy Carbonneau?!) or you man your "shutdown unit" with a lesser player at its most important position.
If I were to build a pure shutdown unit, I would probably do it as a 1st or 2nd line with stud 2-way players like Lemaire, Hooley Smith, etc. At least then I could justify the icetime they'd be getting and the defensemen with whom they'd be playing. One could argue that my 1st line in ATD#11 (Delvecchio - Nighbor - Cook) was a variation on this theme.
Quote:
I think you need to ask yourself - what the hell is the point of this draft?
I think you need to rephrase the question.
Quote:
For me, I look at cohesiveness and what each LINE brings to a team far more than I look at each individual player. This is why I voted against a team in the Leafschat ATD that had Hart trophy winners and numerous top-10 scorers on their 4th line. That 4th line had practically no toughness, would only play MAYBE 10 minutes a game, if that, and was going to get pushed around like a rag doll!
You just described almost my entire ATD#8 team; I've been burned on that flame before. If you think you are speaking with someone who does not adequately respect team or line balance, you are mistaken.
He still would have played with Lemieux. My point was, that lesser offensive talents, if providing enough intangibles, can be successful with guys that are better than them. NHL teams do this a lot of the time, and I think it is a fantastic idea. There are few elite offensive talents that also bring all the intangibles that a glue guy brings.
.
Brown didn't provide intangibles, though. He pretty much did the opposite. He wasn't a great skater, had a bad work ethic, and didn't have a two-way game. He was, however, good at using his linemates to pick up points.
The Winnipeg Jets are absolutely thrilled to select C Ralph Backstrom.
I'm really happy for you. As you know, Backstrom was my 2nd pick, when I picked... Dillon. 50 picks ago.
What has to be known about that pick : VCL and I had a tentative deal, in which we would switch last two picks, and another one a little later. I wanted Watson badly, extremely badly, and he wanted Backstrom as badly as I wanted Watson. The thing is, I was aiming for another player, which I was sure wouldn't be available at 305 (Sergei Gonchar). And I thought Watson would be available at 28x, at first.
So I kindof agreed to the trade down. But it was way too late, and it was like 4 picks away when we were about to close the deal. I had the opportunity to pick Backstrom, and to send it to VCL.
But the thing is : in the ATD's, we're kindof starting to know each other. And I marked Nalyd as... extremely likely to pick Watson (...it seems I was right), and he was picking ahead of VCL.
Finally, we both picked the guys we wanted to pick, without trading up or down.
Except for mine. Actually, I once started my 3rd line before finishing my second (Walt Tkaczuk in ATD#9), and it was a blunder.
Some of the "overemphasis" on 1st units that the new GMs are reacting against is probably my doing. I believe very strongly in putting your best talent on the ice for as long as possible, which means overloading 1st units (or simply drafting them first) and looking for values on 3rd line guys later because the popular picks will be gone long before I start looking in that direction. Well ok, I did pick Dean Prentice once.
The pendulum never stops swinging, and a little opposition certainly doesn't bother me. When I came into the ATD, I was the opposition in a league in which the "pure checking 3rd line" was considered a philosophers' stone by many and Bob Gainey was a 3rd round pick. Going against the grain of whatever cultural blinders are present is often the best way to do things.
Putting your top talent on the same line so they get as much ice time as possible is a good strategy, but isn't the only way to get ice time for your top players. In real life, elite players who play with lesser linemates get double shifted sometimes and get their extra ice time that way.
Loading up a single line that you can send out for extra shifts makes it simpler to get your top talent the most ice time, I can see that. However, having lesser players on a line with great players in no way means that they will see the same ice time, even at even strength. The coach can always find a way to get a lot of ice time for great players.
I agree with your disdain for straight line matching, because of the reasons you gave. I'd rather have two lines that are defensively strong enough to take the tough matchups, probably the first and the third line, and make sure one of those lines is out for the tough matchups. However, in determining what a tough matchup is, I'd look at offensive zone faceoffs and defensive zone faceoffs as much as the line they are playing against. A substantial percentage of shifts start with a faceoff. In almost all cases, a faceoff in your own end with the opponent's second line out is a more dangerous defensive situation than an faceoff in the other end with the opponents first line out.
Edit: What's the consensus on tactical style in the ATD? Is the game assumed to be basically a modern style, with short shifts, four lines, modern coaching techniques, etc, with players and coaches from earlier eras being fully caught up and integrated into this?
Edit: What's the consensus on tactical style in the ATD? Is the game assumed to be basically a modern style, with short shifts, four lines, modern coaching techniques, etc, with players and coaches from earlier eras being fully caught up and integrated into this?
1) Line matching doesn't have an amazingly high success rate, especially on visiting ice. No matter how hard you try and how good a coach you have, over a 7 game series you're not going to get your preferred matchup more than about 60% of the time if the other team does anything against it. Line matching also involves the risk of changing lines on the fly, a problem that is magnified against ATD 1st units which are almost unanimously capable of exploiting a bad change.
I'd argue that the bolded part is a very good thing. If a team is so afraid of getting a bad match-up, you have some control over what they do and that can be a big tactical advantage.
Also, the part about "ATD 1st lines" being any different from a normal first line is ridiculous. It's not as if those ATD first lines are going against a NHL defensive pairing and an AHL goaltender. That's a big-time ATD pairing out there too and an ATD starter. It's all quite relative, and an ATD first line is just a scaled up version of an NHL first line. Plus, this being the best of the best, how often do you think these players would make a bad change just for the sake of getting a match-up? I'm sure they could be quite smart about it.
2002 Olympic Bronze Medal
2002 Stanley Cup Champion
2006 Lady Byng Trophy
2007 Lady Byng Trophy
2008 Stanley Cup Champion
2008 Lady Byng Trophy
2008 Selke Trophy
2008 NHL Plus/Minus Leader
2009 Lady Byng Trophy
2009 Selke Trophy
I'm not a big fan of line matching. I think it can lead to a lot of problems - too much ice time for a checking line, not enough ice time for a top line, and there's also the risk of too many men penalties. I'm a fan of matching up a defence pairing against a top offensive line. If you have a top scorer who's a fine defensive player, and you can take line matching out of the equation, that's great. But otherwise, you do run into problems.
As for a line-up, I generally want my best offensive players on the top line. In this draft, we took a slightly different approach, getting two premier offensive centres right off the bat, then surrounding them with productive wingers. At the same time, you need that complimentary guy on a line who can open room for the more skilled guys. You need that blend of skill, speed, toughness and savvy on the scoring lines.
Just so you know, fellas, I'm not going to be around much this weekend. It's the SJHL Hall of Fame weekend in Weyburn this weekend, in which my perennial MLD assistant coach, Dwight McMillian, will be inducted, along with his long-time partner in crime, Ron Rumball. Canadian Junior A icon Wayne Kartusch will join Dwight and Ronnie in the builders' category, while Chris Chelios and a yet-undrafted player are the other inaugural inductees. And Thanksgiving supper is Sunday. So I'll need one of the mods to keep the draft thread updated.
It also means I won't be around to take lists, except for possibly on Saturday.
Hopefully everyone has a safe and blessed Thanksgiving/Columbus Day, and drive safely if you're on the roads.
(Oh, and one more thing: as of yesterday afternoon, I have media accreditation for the WJC in Saskatoon and Regina).
Last edited by God Bless Canada: 10-09-2009 at 12:17 PM.
I'm not a big fan of line matching. I think it can lead to a lot of problems - too much ice time for a checking line, not enough ice time for a top line, and there's also the risk of too many men penalties. I'm a fan of matching up a defence pairing against a top offensive line. If you have a top scorer who's a fine defensive player, and you can take line matching out of the equation, that's great. But otherwise, you do run into problems.
As for a line-up, I generally want my best offensive players on the top line. In this draft, we took a slightly different approach, getting two premier offensive centres right off the bat, then surrounding them with productive wingers. At the same time, you need that complimentary guy on a line who can open room for the more skilled guys. You need that blend of skill, speed, toughness and savvy on the scoring lines.
And I'd say that's the most important. I like to match lines a little, but it's usually not in a shutdown sense as much as it's because I think I can expose a major weakness by doing so. It's also not much of a priority to me, so I wouldn't be changing on-the-fly every 30 seconds. I usually go 1 vs. 1 anyway, so if it ends up 1 vs. 3, then whatever I still have my top line out there and you don't, fine by me. But, overall, the defensive pairings are probably the most important. That's the head-to-head match-up to worry about.
Datsyuk and Heller were both excellent picks. So was Keats, for that matter, but he probably would have fallen further.
There's no way Keats should fall further. It would of been a crime to see Keats available at 348. At this point, I'm not even debating who I would take between Keats and Datsyuk
There's no way Keats should fall further. It would of been a crime to see Keats available at 348. At this point, I'm not even debating who I would take between Keats and Datsyuk
I'm not disagreeing on his skills. You should know that. But if I was after Keats, (and I am after every player when the time is right) I would also expect him to drop further because he was a western player and that's how they roll.
2002 Olympic Bronze Medal
2002 Stanley Cup Champion
2006 Lady Byng Trophy
2007 Lady Byng Trophy
2008 Stanley Cup Champion
2008 Lady Byng Trophy
2008 Selke Trophy
2008 NHL Plus/Minus Leader
2009 Lady Byng Trophy
2009 Selke Trophy
Yo Pavel, I'm really happy for you, and Imma let you finish, but Marty Pavelich is one of the best defensive forwards of all-time. Of all-time!
